Meanwhile, back at the WaPo shill factory - er, editorial staff - they're DEFENDING Mark Penn

even the title is un-friggingly-believable...

The Sin of Speaking Truth

and it just gets worse from there...

item...

Yet another Democratic adviser is in trouble for having more common sense that his candidate -- or at least, more than his candidate has the courage to admit having.

item...

Austan Goolsbee, Sen. Barack Obama's economic adviser ... suggested to Canadian officials that a President Obama probably wouldn't be foolish enough to repudiate [NAFTA, but since] Mr. Obama had been running hard against NAFTA, blaming it for a million lost jobs and ignoring the good it has done for the poorer people of Mexico, Mr. Goolsbee's comments had to be repudiated.

item...

Mark J. Penn, was helping Colombia's government win congressional approval of a U.S.-Colombia free-trade agreement that Ms. Clinton opposes.

[...]

This is a particular danger in the case of Colombia, since the arguments against the pact are so flimsy.

[...]

Both Democratic candidates rest their opposition on supposed concern about assassination of trade unionists in Colombia, although such violence has fallen so much that the crime rate for them now is lower -- as we've pointed out in past editorials -- than for the population at large. Mr. Obama committed a particularly egregious libel last week when he said, referring to Colombian President Álvaro Uribe, who has taken on the violent left and the violent right at considerable risk to himself, "You've got a government that is under a cloud of potentially having supported violence against unions, against labor, against opposition."

and, finally, the jaw-dropping conclusion...

Does Ms. Clinton really believe a newly elected president should adhere to a year-old timetable for troop withdrawal, regardless of circumstances? Are they each unaware of the real statistics on NAFTA's effects? Voters are left to wonder, and to ponder which would be worse: that the candidates are sincere and misguided or are insincere and lacking the courage to speak honestly.

i wouldn't even know where to begin... is claiming that nafta has been good for the "poorer people of mexico" more patently ridiculous than portraying colombia's chief drug-runner and total washington toady, Álvaro Uribe, as a risk-taker for democracy...? the wapo apparently believes that "the courage to speak honestly" equates with espousing bush administration-approved and wapo-adopted talking points... this is what passes for journalism in our nation's capital...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet